Stupidity is a specific cognitive failing

But the actual solutions were the shock troops, you know? The tanks and the anti-tank defence kinda reached parity by the middle of the WW2, so tanks became rather ineffective at breaking through the field defences. Solution? Specifically trained infantry groups that would infiltrate and destroy the fortifications, Germans used it since the early WW2. And here's a particularly interesting document from the Soviet side (dated 1944! so it's about time of finishing the liberation of their territory) at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BC... , here's a google-translated version:

    An instruction to the units of the 3rd Guards Rifle Volnovakhskaya Red Banner Division No. 0590 / op in addition to the previously given instructions on the preparation of assault groups (November 1, 1944).
    To the regiment commanders of the 3rd Guards Rifle Volnovakh Red Banner Division

    In addition to the previously given instructions for the preparation of assault groups, the divisional commander ORDERED:

    1. In each rifle battalion, create an assault group consisting of: a rifle company, a reconnaissance squad, a sapper squad, a chemists squad, a platoon of 45-mm guns, two heavy machine guns.

    2. For the convenience of the actions of the assault groups, divide them during the performance of combat missions into the following subgroups: barriers, blocking, cover and capture.
    Allocate sappers into the barriers subgroup, three - five submachine gunners; provide the subgroup with crampons with ropes, probes, scissors for cutting wire, whistles, small axes, small infantry shovels, extended explosive charges of three kilograms each, pointers to indicate passages.
    In the blocking subgroup, assign 3-4 sappers with universal charges, anti-tank mines or anti-tank grenades to blow up a structure or to throw grenades through an embrasure, before a platoon of shooters to deliver anti-tank mines, explosives and bottles with a combustible mixture, 2-3 chemists.
    In the cover subgroup, allocate the heavy fire weapons attached to the assault group (anti-tank rifles, 45-mm guns, heavy machine guns).
    Provide the cover subgroup with whistles, rocket launchers.
    In the capture subgroup, assign a platoon of riflemen, a reconnaissance squad, 2-3 chemists, 2-3 sappers.
    Arm the capture subgroup with grenades, knives, termite balls, bottles with a combustible mixture, smoke hand grenades.

    3. The unit commanders should conduct training sessions with the assault groups for at least 4 hours every day, during which to work out the issues of the assault group's offensive, attacks by enemy bunkers, bunkers, methods of destroying bunkers, bunkers.

    4. The composition of the assault groups should be submitted to the division headquarters by 10.00 2.11.44.

            Chief of Staff of the Division (signature) No. 0590 / op 1.11.44 

Tanks are not enough, not by a long shot, and Germans knew it by the end of the WW1. Soviets learned it by the middle of WW2.

The OP lost me on a bunch of bad analogies. I’ll keep recommending to my friends The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlo Cipolla.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49348225-the-basic-laws-...

There is no way round that "stupid" is primarily an insult thrown at opponents, not a statement of fact. As a matter of fact we are all incredibly smart. And stupid too.

With that said, I have a hard time agreeing with the definition of stupidity put forth in the article, as far as I understand it. To me stupidity is that state of mind that one may find oneself in before the first cup of coffee in the morning, or when stress (or ignorance) prevents one from intelligently considering all the relevant facts in a case etc. It is not something I would assign as attributes of persons lest it be someone I really didn't like, or (shudder) groups of persons, nor qualitatively separate from "dumbness".

Sticking to an outdated military tactic has far more reasons than one persons "stupidity", and what's up with mentioning South Africa in the context of "a kind of misguided innovation" influenced by "ideas and terms taken from the United States"?

Looks to me like the author is attempting to accrue academic points on the topic of stupidity, in order to use the insult more effectively against opponents.

The author may be onto something. Or they may have had one good idea and are now trying to make it fit too many problems.

WWI did have moments of extreme stupidity. But the real problem was that, for the first time since castles vs. troops without cannon, defense was stronger than offense. Machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches could resist most attacks. When that wasn't enough, both sides had plenty of railroad capacity and could move reserves around fast enough that no breakthrough got very far. There was much logistic cleverness behind that. It worked well.

When defense is stronger than offense, wars stall. Which is what happened in WWI. Nobody could force a decision. Until tanks and aircraft entered the battlefield.

We have that today. Guerilla warfare can go on for decades. Neither side can force a decision. If the guerilla side gets ahead, they control entire areas, which means they have vulnerable centers that can be attacked. If the other side gets ahead, the guerillas hide in the population until the heat is off. "A guerrilla swims among the people like a fish swims in the sea." - Mao. Neither side can force a decision, although one side may eventually wear down the other over a long period.

Modern militaries realize that their tactical doctrine may not work, but they're also aware that new, proposed doctrine may be worse. There have been societies that couldn't even think about that problem. Many, from the Aztecs to the Zulus, are extinct.

Given the Ludendorff offensive failed I don't think you can call stormtroopers alone a solution. High casualties, outrunning supply and obtaining territory that is hard to defend which weakens your overall position.

I don't agree that tanks had reached some ineffective impasse. Quoting wikipedia:

> By 1918, tank capabilities and tactics improved, their numbers increased and, combined with French tanks, finally helped break the stalemate. During the last 100 days of the war, Allied forces harried the Germans back using infantry supported by tanks and by close air support. By the war's end, tanks become a significant element of warfare; the proposed British Plan 1919 would have employed tanks as a primary factor in military strategy. However, the impact of tanks in World War I was less than it could have been, due to their late introduction and the inherent issues that plague implementing revolutionary technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare

Plan 1919 was going to use 30,000 new faster tanks.